SMT. SUDHA RANI GARG versus SRI JAGDISH KUMAR (DEAD) AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 206 · Decided: 08-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SMT. SUDHA RANI GARG 
v. 
SRI JAGDISH KUMAR (DEAD) AND,ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND PRAKASH PRABHAKAR NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
U.P. Urban Building Regulation of letting Rent and Eviction Act 
C 1972-Sec. 2(2)-Stipulation of ten years period-applicability of-In a suit 
for ejectment-Held, applicable and section 106 of the Transfer of Property 
Act not applicable. 
D 
Explanation I to Sec. 2(2) date of determination of completion of 
building-Deemed to have been completed prior to date of assessment. 
Words and Phrases- 'Deemed'-Meaning of-Explained 
Respondents 1 to 5 filed a suit for ejectment against appellants 
after giving 'notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. The 
appellant-tenants resisted the suit on the ground that ten years period 
E stipulated under Section 2(2) of the UP Urban Building (Regulation of 
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is applicable and the provisions of 
Transfer of Property Act are not applicable. The Trial Court accepted 
the plea of the appellants and dismissed the suit. 
F 
Respondents 1 to 5 filed a Revision Petition which was allowed and 
the view of Revisional Court was confirmed by the High Court. 
Before this Court, the appellants contended that the Revisional 
Court and the High Court have not considered the provisions of Section 
2(2) of the UP Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) 
G Act, 1972; and that when the assessment clearly indicated that the period 
was "Quarter of September 1982" the trial court was right in concluding 
that the date of completion was 1.7.1982. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H 
HELD : I. The Explanation -I to section 2(2) of the U. P. Rent Act 
206 
S.R. GARG v. JAGDISH KUMAR 
207 
is a deeming provision. The word "deemed" is used a great deal in A 
modern legislation. [210-G) 
Ali MK. and Ors. v. State of Kera/a & Ors., (2003) 11 SCC 632, relied 
on. 
St. Aubyn (L.M) v. A.G. (No.2), [1951) 2 ALL E.R. 473 (HL); Hunter B 
Douglas Australia Pty v. Perma Blinds, (1970) 44 ALJR 257; 
R v. Norfolk County Court, 60 LJQB 380; Ferguson v. McMillan, 
(1954) SLT 109; St. Leon Village Consolidated School District v. 
Ronceray, [1960) 23 DLR (2d) 32; Barclays Bank v. !RC, [1961) AC 
609 and R v. Bnxion Prison Governor Exp. Sob/en~ (1962) 3 All ER 641, C 
referred to. 
2. In the instant case a quarter is a period oftirne, covering from 1st 
July 1982 to 30th September, 1982. It only shows that when assessment 
was made, construction was completed earlier sometime in the third 
quarter of September 1982. The quarter started from 1st July, 1982. It D 
cannot mean that the construction of the building was completed by the 
date. The date of completion of construction can be any date falling 
between two terminals i.e. 1st July 1982 to 30th September, 1982. The 
hypothetical presumption that the first date of the quarter being 1st July 
1982 it shall be deemed to be the date of completion of construction has no E 
basis. In case the first three dates are available then the modality for 
working out the date of completion is prov~ded in the Explanation. As the 
records go to show, the first assessment cr1.'1e into effect on 1.4.1983. That 
is the third date provided in the explanatfon. [212-A, B, CJ 
3. Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, the tenant is F 
permitted to occupy the premises till the end of2005 subject to filing the 
usual undertaking before the Trial Court with a clear stipulation that 
the rent fixed shall be paid within the stipulated time, and arrears, if 
any, shall be paid within two months. (212-E] 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE WRISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4963 of2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.99 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 47425 of 1999. 
A.K. Sanghi for the Appellant. 
H 
A 
208 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
Gaurav Jain and Ms. Abha Rani Jain for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: The tenant is in appeal against the judgment 
of learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court. It was held by the 
B 
High Court that the suit filed by respondents 
1 to 5 in this appeal 
(Respondents 3 to 7 before the High Court) has been rightly decreed by the 
Revisional Court, as the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of 
Letting, Rent, and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act') was not applicable 
to the case. 
c 
The respondents 1 to 5 filed a suit for ejectment giving
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.